Heritage
Subscribe now for unlimited access.
$0/
(min cost $0)
or signup to continue reading
IT SEEMS a little in-congruent for an area associated with its heritage values, and housing the University's Faculty of Architecture, to be the site of an ugly shoebox-like structure which I am led to believe is student accommodation.
If this is an indication of the bold new vision the University has for the Northern campus, I suggest they return to their ivory towers in Hobart and start planning the updating of the Newnham campus.
— OLIVE McINTOSH, Launceston.
Environment
NOBODY should be surprised that Bass Liberal MHR Andrew Nikolic is spearheading an attack on environmental groups committed to defending our natural heritage.
Like them or not, the fact is Tasmania’s tourism industry, built on attractions so many wanted to destroy, is supporting our overall economy in a way the Gunns-era timber industry never could.
Mr Nikolic is extremely lucky that the voters of Bass have not demanded the same high standards they did of his predecessor, who much more quietly worked with a focus on schools, hospitals, and people with disabilities.
— PETER LLOYD, Reedy Marsh.
Superannuation
INDUSTRY superannuation funds return to their member’s greater financial returns than that of retail superannuation funds.
Industry funds have low fees and are run by Australian workers through their unions.
Retail funds have high fees and are run by banks and big business.
Industry funds return more money to its members than retail funds.
The Government is proposing to introduce legislation that will increase Industry funds fees reducing returns to members.
It is mainly intended to remove the influence of unions allowing employers to reduce employee wages and conditions which will lower the Australian workers living standards.
The questions requiring a response are, why would the Government want to see Australian workers receive fewer benefits from their superannuation?
Why introduce legislation that will remove money from Australian workers pockets whilst leaving in place legislation that allows multi millionaires to receive more from their superannuation?
— WALLY REYNOLDS, Perth.
Finances
In answer to Peter Doddy, the public outcry at this point on the utter waste of taxpayers money isn’t about what other past senators have done.
It’s about the here and now and the helicopter ride that she took to a state Liberal fundraiser.
If we are going to talk about past waste of taxpayers money we would be here forever, and I mean waste on both sides of politics.
It’s the topic at hand that can’t be brushed under the carpet that needs an outcome suitable to all the taxpayers, not one that suits the Prime minister.
If Australia was left in a financial mess by the Labor Government, then how can the House of Representatives Speaker Bronwyn Bishop or Prime Minister Tony Abbott justify the enormous waste?
We are not talking of entitlement after all the age of entitlement is over isn't it?
— SUSAN GOEBEL, Invermay.
Asylum seekers
IT IS so very disappointing that the Labor opposition leader is advocating support for the Liberal party’s inhumane turn-back-the-boats policy.
We are currently witnessing the Australian navy being asked to return some 80 Vietnamese asylum seekers to an uncertain future.
Labor has already placed its stamp on mandatory detention, offshore processing and resettlement of asylum seekers to third-world countries such as Papua New Guinea and Cambodia.
The fact that children are being held in detention is particularly abominable.
The generosity of spirit displayed by the Italian and Greek people towards thousands of refugees fleeing from the terrors of Middle East is in stark contrast to Australia’s lack of fairness, decency and justice towards the comparative few who struggle to reach the safety of our shores.
To continue to support a policy that is so damaging to the mental, emotional and physical health of some of the world’s most vulnerable people for political gain is deplorable.
— EDWARD SIANSKI, West Moonah.
Economy
TO manage any economy properly ideally you need a triplicate receipt system to reign in all the cash that small business indulge in, one for the vendor one for the customer and one for the government, so why don't we have one.
It would be because they target the 2.3 million small business's favourably as they did in the last budget.
Small business owners are the more influential people in society, so to target this demographic unfavourably would be political suicide, but you would have thought it would be more socially acceptable and a necessary fundamental management practice to know exactly how much black cash was in circulation.
Reign this in, and there would be no need to hit lower income earners with an increase in GST .
— IAN FITCH, George Town.
Wharf
THE death knell for the forestry industry has now been sounded, in particular for the south and east.
I refer to the recent advertisement for the sale of the Triabunna‘s Freestone Point wharf and port with seabed titles included.
It is the only deep water port on the eastern seaboard north of Hobart.
It is a facility that could be vital for exports into the future.
Forest products, farm produce, engineered manufacturing and minerals are some of the exports that might need this facility as Tasmania develops its industries and becomes less dependent on other states for revenue.
It is bizarre to think that the government would sell a port with no land access to it.
There can be only one interested party - the owners of the old mill site which land locks the wharf site.
It is not too late for the government to withdraw the facility from sale, acquire access to it and support the many electors who changed their vote to Liberal on its promise to rejuvenate our economy – including the forest industry.
This one off opportunity must not be lost.
— DON MCSHANE, Perth.
Fatalities
WE SHOULD all get angry with statistics that reveal how 3287 people have died, or been seriously injured, on Tasmanian roads over the past decade (The Examiner, July 20).
“More constructively” we should all get angry with the disrespectful leniency shown by the courts towards those responsible.
Deputy editor Barry Prismall reports - “What never seems to improve is driver and rider behaviour”, or the court injustices.
Mr Prismall suggests - “Every hoon and negligent fool should be made to view the mangled wrecks in which the victims have perished” and made to view the victims mangled lifeless bodies, like we the victims parents and loved ones do.
— A. R. TROUNSON, Needles.
Crime
A.R. TROUNSON (Letters, July 22) is correct in that I believe suspended sentences are a viable and effective sentencing option.
However, unlike many others who rely simply on selective newspaper reports, that belief is based on reading the research that clearly shows that the re-offending rates for those on suspended sentences are far lower than those who get a custodial sentence.
Over 65 per cent of people who go to jail re-offend whereas the rate is around 45 per cent for those given a suspended sentence.
Those well-researched statistics demonstrate graphically that suspended sentences do work for the majority who receive them.
That some do re-offend while on a suspended sentence does not make for a convincing case to abolish them. The matter of the courts not revoking the suspension in the case(s) of re-offending is a different matter entirely and nothing to do with the initial imposed suspended sentence.
— GEOFF MCLEAN, Launceston.
Guns
WHY ARE we subject to the rhetoric of a deputy editor who, by his comments is anti-gun ownership and poorly informed, or maybe just presenting his so-called facts to suit his own personal stance (The Examiner, July 17).
The last time I looked the definition of a “weapon” was any item that is used to cause harm or damage to another being.
To label a firearm as a weapon is as ludicrous as saying that all vehicles, knives and hammers are as such because they have been used to cause harm to another individual.
An operational firearm is still a firearm not a weapon.
But now we are asked to believe that because criminals are targeting legally owned firearms, and this is the new “designer crime” that all licenced, law abiding firearm owners should bow down for the greater good.
The last statement of “long overdue refer on handguns” once again is not based on any factual evidence.
Fact: Within Tasmania, handguns have been compulsory registered since 1934.
Since that time only one legally owned handgun has been used in the commission of serious crime by a licensed owner.
There is no problem or community safety concerns with the ownership of these firearms for the purpose of sports shooting.
— C. MOORE, Van Diemen Pistol Club, Launceston president.